I'm talking regardless of size (ie, pretend Wilt and Barkley are of equal height): just the most hard-nosed, effective, blue-collared rebounder. Who's the guy you'd rather run home crying from than face under the glass...?

Me? Gotta be Dennis Rodman. The man couldn't do much, but he was a genius on the boards.

I voted other because of BILL RUSSELL. He averaged over 22 rebounds per game and almost 25 in the playoffs. He did all this at about 6'9.

What is equal among Russell's rebounding talents was his cerebral approach to the game. He was one of the first, if not the first, to study habits of shooters and mark tendencies in a gameplan. He knew where rebounds were going before even the shooter released the ball. Now that is impressive.

11 Championships were built on rebounding and a relentless, nasty, blue collar approach to the game.

Thunder wrote:I voted other because of BILL RUSSELL. He averaged over 22 rebounds per game and almost 25 in the playoffs. He did all this at about 6'9.

What is equal among Russell's rebounding talents was his cerebral approach to the game. He was one of the first, if not the first, to study habits of shooters and mark tendencies in a gameplan. He knew where rebounds were going before even the shooter released the ball. Now that is impressive.

11 Championships were built on rebounding and a relentless, nasty, blue collar approach to the game.

yeah but thats like saying Wilt Chamberlin is the greatest player of all time because he averaged 55/20 once. Bill Russel was out of that era, he was just phsyicall more dominant than the other white boys on the court. It's like if I played with a bunch of scrubs also I would average 15rpg, would that define me as a great rebounder? no

I voted other too. And my pick (from the players I've seen play) is this guy:

Moses Malone.

He seems to be a bit underrated, at least he doesn't appear often in any discussion about the best centers ever, and still is the third-leading rebounder and sixth-leading scorer in combined NBA/ABA history, one of the top 50 players in history and a three time MVP.

Also, he was nasty and relentless going for the boards, and dominating for more than a decade.

I may be a bit biased here, as Moses and Hakeem are my two favorite centers ever, but I don't think he gets the recognizement he deserves.

I almost listed Russell as a choice, but figured that not many people would pick him because (a) he's more known for his shot-blocking and (b) like zero said, he played during an era where the tallest man got the board (or made the lay-up inside). But I think it is a noteable thing to mention that he averaged so many boards while only being 6'9"... btw, zero, Russ was a center, not a SF...

And I completely agree with you as far as Malone's underrated game, TMC. The only reason I don't give him more credit is because I think he dragged his career on a little too long and it kind of took the shine off his time in the NBA for me. Charles Barkley knew when to take himself elsewhere. Players like Shawn Kemp, Moses Malone, and Buck Williams just tarnish their image because they don't know when to stop. On one hand, they love the game... but, on the other, they're sacrificing a good amount of their God-like status to stick around after their prime and appear more 'mortal', I think is the word. I know I, for one, will never look at Michael Jordan the same way again after he only put up 19 points a game for the Wizards. I think it's the same thing with players like Malone. Players like Kevin McHale and Isaiah Thomas will never be questioned because they bowed out before they became parodies of what they once were.

I hardly think that it is fair to judge the talent level of the 60s that harhly. There were a number of great players who Russell had to go up against. Of course the talent level is what it is today, but it is no reason to penalize a guy for when he played. How many rebounds would he have had to average before it doesn't matter what era he played in? 30? 40? NBA talent has always been the best available at the age in time and Russell, against the best of the best in his time, out performed them in terms of rebounding more than anyone else.

Thunder wrote:I hardly think that it is fair to judge the talent level of the 60s that harhly. There were a number of great players who Russell had to go up against. Of course the talent level is what it is today, but it is no reason to penalize a guy for when he played. How many rebounds would he have had to average before it doesn't matter what era he played in? 30? 40? NBA talent has always been the best available at the age in time and Russell, against the best of the best in his time, out performed them in terms of rebounding more than anyone else.

I'm not discounting what Bill Russell did as a player... he's one of the greatest of all-time. However, if you had a time machine and could snag any player (during their prime) from any era, would you really pick a scrawny 6'9" center who's level of competition was nowhere near as intense or physical as players in future eras? Bill Russell is my pick for the best player in the 1960's, there's no question... but I still feel that Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace, and Anthony Mason would eat him up for breakfast on the glass. Definately was a better all-around player than Wallace or Mason, but rebounding (in itself) is another story.

Besides, you can't simply pretend that the level of competition, the knowledge of the game, the maturity of the skills that everyone (worldwide) discovered overtime (ie, the cross-over dribble), and the body of a player don't come into account when comparing players of different eras. People will never fully agree on how to compare players 20 years apart, but (personally) I think everyone needs to be placed on an equal block. If Rodman was facing Russell's competition under the glass, Dennis would average 30 boards a game. That's why I picked Rodman.

And, in some cases, the older players still win. I haven't seen a rebounder like Rodman since the 90's (when he played). 6 years later and, still, not even a hint of someone with his kind of hustle.

dennis rodman? imho, he's just a more athletic, more passionate version of troy murphy, who always goes for the ball, does not block out his own man, grabs rebounds from teammates, reluctant to rotate outside or help out others because it hurts his rebounding chance.

christy wrote:dennis rodman? imho, he's just a more athletic, more passionate version of troy murphy, who always goes for the ball, does not block out his own man, grabs rebounds from teammates, reluctant to rotate outside or help out others because it hurts his rebounding chance.

Dennis Rodman was the king of blocking people out. I recall half of Alonzo Mourning's gameplan in the playoffs against the Bulls was how to shut out Rodman's inside physicality.

Dennis Rodman didn't just stick his ass out and move backwards; he used his arms more than most players do, he was far quicker (and jumped a lot higher) than most of the inside players he fought, and he used his twisted psycological mind to whisper things intos opposing player's ears! I can't TELL you how funny it was to see how frustrated Mourning was getting when Rodman was patting him on the ass (probably after hissing some sort of inuedno into his ear on the box). He was a genius at how to get the ball.

If boxing out is what you're worried about, then stay tuned. I'll go grab some Rodman pics and you can see for yourself.